Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2003 DIGILAW 20 (SC)

USHA RAJE RANA v. SAMBHAJI RAO C. ANGRE

2003-01-10

ASHOK BHAN, S.S.M.QUADRI

body2003
ORDER 1. These two transfer petitions are cross-petitions. Petitioners 1 to 3 in Transfer Petition (C) No. 3 of 2002, who are legal representatives of deceased Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia, claim to be the joint executors of the last Will and testament of late Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia, which is said to e have been executed at Bombay on 26-2-1999. Petitioners 4 and 5 are the beneficiaries under the said Will. The petitioners filed probate petition, being No. 531 of 2001, for grant of probate of the said Will before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in July 2001. Claiming that the said late Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia had earlier executed the Will on 20-9-1985, the first respondent filed a probate petition (No. 16 of 2001) under Section 276 of the f Indian Succession Act before the High Court at Delhi. 2. The petitioner in this case [Transfer Petition (C) No.3 of 2002] seeks transfer of the probate petition (No. 16 of 2001) filed by the first respondent before the High Court at Delhi, titled Sambhaji Rao C. Angre v. State, to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The first respondent has filed Transfer Petition (C) No. 223 of 2002 for transfer of Probate Petition No. 531 of 2001 from the High Court of Judicature at Bombay to the High Court at Delhi to be adjudicated along with Probate Petition No. 16 of 2001, referred to above. 3. Mr TLV. Iyer, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Transfer Petition (C) No.3 of 2002 submits that the two attesting witnesses of the 1999 Will are in Bombay and even one of the attesting witnesses of the 1985 Will is also in Bombay, therefore, it would be just and convenient if Probate Petition No. 16 of 2001 is transferred to Bombay. It is, however, submitted that in the case pending in the Bombay High Court, the question of genuineness of the last Will is in issue and that no common issues arise between the two cases. Mr R.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that seven out of the nine parties are in Delhi, therefore, it would be just and convenient if Probate Petition No. 531 of 2001 is transferred to Delhi. The other contention is not disputed. 4. Mr R.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that seven out of the nine parties are in Delhi, therefore, it would be just and convenient if Probate Petition No. 531 of 2001 is transferred to Delhi. The other contention is not disputed. 4. Insofar as the probate petition filed at Bombay is concerned, the question of genuineness and validity of the alleged last Will of late Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia said to be executed on 26-2-1999 is independent of the Will of 1985 which is the subject-matter of Probate Petition No. 16 of 2001 filed before the High Court at Delhi. It is, therefore, unnecessary to club these two cases together and they can be decided independent of each other. In this view of the matter, it is unnecessary to consider the question of convenience of the parties and we are not inclined to transfer the cases either to Bombay or to Delhi. 5. The transfer petitions are, therefore, dismissed.